Yes genius you have to be at least 35. You can't be president at 34. That's the lower age requirement as opposed to the hypothetical higher age requirement we were talking about ( I put it in terms that reflected our discussion ). Now if you going to start harping on semantics I will consider you desperate.
Anything else?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Yes genius you have to be at least 35. You can't be president at 34. That's the lower age requirement as opposed to the hypothetical higher age requirement we were talking about. Now if you going to start harping on semantics I will consider you desperate.

This isn't an issue of semantics.

You kept bringing up the minimum age requirement as if it was somehow relevant to the discussion of an upper age concern.

If you consider this an issue of semantics I will consider you ignorant of either the meaning of semantics or the different issues related to minimum or maximum age issues.

Semantics (from Greek sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós)[1][2] is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata.

Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used by humans to express themselves through language.

At any rate what's relevent is that age is already an issue with this job because it's different from just any job.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

So back to the question: Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X?

They already can, when job performance is a concern. And I know this is a position you support (that an employer should have the right to discriminate for any reason), so why are you being so obtuse about your point?

In age limit may be legally specified in the circumstance where age has been shown to be a "bona fide occupational qualifications reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business" (BFOQ) (see 29 U.S.C.*§*623(f)(1)). In practice, BFOQs for age are limited to the obvious (hiring a young actor to play a young character in a movie) or when public safety is at stake (for example, in the case of age limits for pilots and bus drivers

In age limit may be legally specified in the circumstance where age has been shown to be a "bona fide occupational qualifications reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business" (BFOQ) (see 29 U.S.C.*§*623(f)(1)). In practice, BFOQs for age are limited to the obvious (hiring a young actor to play a young character in a movie) or when public safety is at stake (for example, in the case of age limits for pilots and bus drivers

So we've been talking about a job that seems unlike either of these examples (young actor to play a young character, pilots and bus drivers)...but instead a position that primarily involves management, leadership, policymaking, decision making, etc. Essentially an executive management position.

If we were to try to compare apples and apples...then...Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X (say a company division or department)?

We have some posters appearing to say that such discrimination is appropriate in the public sector for an elected official. One even going so far as to say it's probably because once someone gets to old they can't find their shoes.

Would you not say that in the case of the President of the United States, who can now, without the approval of Congress, order a military attack, this involves public safety? So an employer can refuse to hire a 60 year-old bus driver, but can not vote against an 80 year-old with his finger on the button?

Likewise. The lower age limit is absolutely a related issue.

Questions:

Why is there a lower age limit?
Are there concerns with youth that might affect the performance of the President? Why is 35 acceptable, but 30 is not? What if the person in question graduated from university at 20 and got a PHD by 25? Why can't there be exceptions?
Why is this age limit only relevant to the position of President?
Is the position of President more important than other positions, say, CEO of a large corporation?
Are there concerns with old age that might affect performance of the duties of the President?

Would you not say that in the case of the President of the United States, who can now, without the approval of Congress, order a military attack, this involves public safety? So an employer can refuse to hire a 60 year-old bus driver, but can not vote against an 80 year-old with his finger on the button?

Apparently we have tonton arguing that age discrimination (at least) is okay. Got it. I actually agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Likewise. The lower age limit is absolutely a related issue.

Questions:

Why is there a lower age limit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Why is this age limit only relevant to the position of President?

Good questions. Until we answer these we don't know if it has any bearing on this question of an upper age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Are there concerns with old age that might affect performance of the duties of the President?

Possibly. We should ask why no maximum age limit was put in when a minimum was.

You kept bringing up the minimum age requirement as if it was somehow relevant to the discussion of an upper age concern.

If you consider this an issue of semantics I will consider you ignorant of either the meaning of semantics or the different issues related to minimum or maximum age issues.

Be nice to Jimmac. Obviously it's a little gotcha point and I already explained about early-onset being 10% of the cases and starting in the 50's. Jimmac is clearly trying to prove the age point by being a literal example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Yes, you are, without first clarifying your opinion on the question, which, aside from being very rude, is typical of your argument style. We've been through this before.

I think I have the right not to even interview a 40 year-old ballerina, if I'm creative director at a ballet, do I not?

The arts are nothing like considering someone in their ability to actually be productive. The arts are the anti-thesis of this in many ways because it's truly a case of style over substance and that is totally acceptable within the artistic realm but not what we want (but sadly what we have) for president.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Possibly because Alzheimer's, and senility in general, were not recognized at the time, and perhaps because they were less of a problem. There was no Fluoride in the drinking water, for instance.

Or perhaps they actually knew what the hell they were talking about and your concerns aren't valid. People didn't stop suffering from the same ailments back then. In fact you show the point in that they wouldn't have called it Alzheimer's. They'd just have addressed it as aging and as such likely been less understanding and more intolerant of it. Instead we have the opposite.

Odd comparisons between trying to run the world and flipping hamburgers aside...Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X?

It already happens... In fact, it's endorsed by the U.S. Government.
I will be forced to stop working when I turn 65... Regardless of my health or ability or experience. It is a government mandate. Up until 3 years ago, it was 60. (The change was made to the law for financial reasons and political pressure... They did no studies about age related health concerns.)

A personal vote can't be regulated... An individual gets to vote based on whatever criteria he chooses. If you wish to call his choices discriminatory, it still doesn't make them wrong at the personal level. Those same choices, if made by the "establishment" to determine if the person can even RUN for office... That WOULD be discriminatory.
And yes, there are certain jobs, mine included, that SHOULD have these age related safeguards in place. I am also of the opinion that POTUS could have such a limit, based on the huge risk to life taken on by the decisions he makes. (more citizens have been killed in our recent wars than in airline crashes in the same time period, yet it's ok to "discriminate" based on age for the airline pilot.)

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

Be nice to Jimmac. Obviously it's a little gotcha point and I already explained about early-onset being 10% of the cases and starting in the 50's. Jimmac is clearly trying to prove the age point by being a literal example.

The arts are nothing like considering someone in their ability to actually be productive. The arts are the anti-thesis of this in many ways because it's truly a case of style over substance and that is totally acceptable within the artistic realm but not what we want (but sadly what we have) for president.

Or perhaps they actually knew what the hell they were talking about and your concerns aren't valid. People didn't stop suffering from the same ailments back then. In fact you show the point in that they wouldn't have called it Alzheimer's. They'd just have addressed it as aging and as such likely been less understanding and more intolerant of it. Instead we have the opposite.

Quote:

Jimmac is clearly trying to prove the age point by being a literal example.

Not just by example as I'm not running for the office of the president. Moreover it's the logic behind this just isn't your ordinary job and we need someone at the top of their game for this. And I'm not trying to prove anything. I already have proved it and not by example but through logic.

Quote:

The arts are nothing like considering someone in their ability to actually be productive. The arts are the anti-thesis of this in many ways because it's truly a case of style over substance and that is totally acceptable within the artistic realm but not what we want (but sadly what we have) for president.

Sorry but MJ has already moved this discussion into the realm of any job by his question :

Quote:

Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X?

A 40 year old ballerina can't " produce " the same performance as that of a 19 year old. So there you go.

And actually it's a pretty big " Gotcha " point. But be nice to MJ trumpy. It's pretty obvious he hadn't thought this one through.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Would you not say that in the case of the President of the United States, who can now, without the approval of Congress, order a military attack, this involves public safety? So an employer can refuse to hire a 60 year-old bus driver, but can not vote against an 80 year-old with his finger on the button?

Likewise. The lower age limit is absolutely a related issue.

Questions:

Why is there a lower age limit?
Are there concerns with youth that might affect the performance of the President? Why is 35 acceptable, but 30 is not? What if the person in question graduated from university at 20 and got a PHD by 25? Why can't there be exceptions?
Why is this age limit only relevant to the position of President?
Is the position of President more important than other positions, say, CEO of a large corporation?
Are there concerns with old age that might affect performance of the duties of the President?

Already answered this in an earlier post to Jimmac as far as why a Minimum age requirement. Why is it not lower? Because that was what was voted and agreed on. If you don't like it, vote to have it changed.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

I know what semantics are. You quite obviously don't since you misused the term.

Yes...and we were discussing concerns about an upper age limit. Which does not exist in any law or clause in the constitution.

So back to the question: Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X?

Not on most jobs but on ones that require top performance yes perhaps they should. And MJ that's the point you're still attempting to gloss over. This isn't the same as any job you would find out there and there's already a minimum why shouldn't there be a maximum for the same reasons?

Quote:

You guess wrong.

Maybe you forgot.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Not on most jobs but on ones that require top performance yes perhaps they should. And MJ that's the point you're still attempting to gloss over. This isn't the same as any job you would find out there and there's already a minimum why shouldn't there be a maximum for the same reasons?

And yet there is an explicitly stated minimum but not an explicitly stated maximum. Odd.

Not just by example as I'm not running for the office of the president. Moreover it's the logic behind this just isn't your ordinary job and we need someone at the top of their game for this. And I'm not trying to prove anything. I already have proved it and not by example but through logic.

What did you prove? By what logic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Sorry but MJ has...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

But be nice to MJ...

jimmac do you have a crush on me. I mean you seem to be rather fixed on me and what I say. You're not in love with me are you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

It's pretty obvious he hadn't thought this one through.

Well...I have actually. In case you did not catch it, I stated very clearly that I personally think any employer has the right to discriminate on who they hire for any reason they want to.

Many liberals however want to pick and choose when, where, who and for what reasons that discrimination is allowed. The boundaries and restrictions are typically vague and arbitrary. So, with our liberal friends here, I've simply been trying to clear up precisely when discrimination is ok and when it is not...in their opinions...not the laws (I can read those myself)...but their opinions. So far we've just had a bunch of hand-waving, side-stepping, misdirection and such.

Well...that plus one poster who posits that people of certain age can't even find their shoes.

It already happens... In fact, it's endorsed by the U.S. Government.
I will be forced to stop working when I turn 65... Regardless of my health or ability or experience. It is a government mandate. Up until 3 years ago, it was 60. (The change was made to the law for financial reasons and political pressure... They did no studies about age related health concerns.)

Sad isn't it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot

A personal vote can't be regulated... An individual gets to vote based on whatever criteria he chooses.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot

If you wish to call his choices discriminatory, it still doesn't make them wrong at the personal level.

First, whether I wish to call it that or not, it is discriminatory. Secondly, I don't think I ever said it was wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot

Those same choices, if made by the "establishment" to determine if the person can even RUN for office... That WOULD be discriminatory.

Both are discriminatory. One is just codified into law and enforced by the use of force.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot

And yes, there are certain jobs, mine included, that SHOULD have these age related safeguards in place. I am also of the opinion that POTUS could have such a limit, based on the huge risk to life taken on by the decisions he makes. (more citizens have been killed in our recent wars than in airline crashes in the same time period, yet it's ok to "discriminate" based on age for the airline pilot.)

You are correct, the President of the United States has way too much power. Finally someone said it. Whew.

jimmac do you have a crush on me. I mean you seem to be rather fixed on me and what I say. You're not in love with me are you?

Well...I have actually. In case you did not catch it, I stated very clearly that I personally think any employer has the right to discriminate on who they hire for any reason they want to.

Many liberals however want to pick and choose when, where, who and for what reasons that discrimination is allowed. The boundaries and restrictions are typically vague and arbitrary. So, with our liberal friends here, I've simply been trying to clear up precisely when discrimination is ok and when it is not...in their opinions...not the laws (I can read those myself)...but their opinions. So far we've just had a bunch of hand-waving, side-stepping, misdirection and such.

Well...that plus one poster who posits that people of certain age can't even find their shoes.

Quote:

jimmac do you have a crush on me. I mean you seem to be rather fixed on me and what I say. You're not in love with me are you?

Hey don't blame me! You're the one who had to give this " Gotta have the last word " reply!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

In all seriousness though, Paul can't win. He simply is not going to get the support of the Republican establishment and the military-industrial complex.

As for me, I like much of what he has to say. But I think he's too extreme on:

The Federal Reserve

Political Isolationism

Iran building nukes

Military action w/o a declaration of war

The Fed is not going away. We should not go back to the gold standard, as there is no evidence that doing so is going to usher in economic growth and stability (quite the opposite...the money supply would collapse). As much as I agree with not sticking our noses all over the world and maintaining 700 foreign military bases, we can't just politically withdraw from world events. His position on Iran building nukes is one I understand ("we shouldn't tell anyone what to do"), but is not realistic nor practical given Iran's leadership and proximity to Israel. And military action does not always require a formal declaration of war. Opposing the Iraq war is one thing. Opposing the routing out of the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan and stabilizing the country is another.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

In all seriousness though, Paul can't win. He simply is not going to get the support of the Republican establishment and the military-industrial complex.

As for me, I like much of what he has to say. But I think he's too extreme on:

The Federal Reserve

Political Isolationism

Iran building nukes

Military action w/o a declaration of war

The Fed is not going away. We should not go back to the gold standard, as there is no evidence that doing so is going to usher in economic growth and stability (quite the opposite...the money supply would collapse). As much as I agree with not sticking our noses all over the world and maintaining 700 foreign military bases, we can't just politically withdraw from world events. His position on Iran building nukes is one I understand ("we shouldn't tell anyone what to do"), but is not realistic nor practical given Iran's leadership and proximity to Israel. And military action does not always require a formal declaration of war. Opposing the Iraq war is one thing. Opposing the routing out of the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan and stabilizing the country is another.

He's right with regard to the military. 100% right. And to say it's political isolationism is a lie. We will still trade with other governments and promote freedom around the world, even if we don't go around spending billions on bombing the shit out of every Muslim who has oil (we don't bomb the actual terrorists in the Philippines, now, do we?)

He's right with regard to the military. 100% right. And to say it's political isolationism is a lie. We will still trade with other governments and promote freedom around the world, even if we don't go around spending billions on bombing the shit out of every Muslim who has oil (we don't bomb the actual terrorists in the Philippines, now, do we?)

I'm fine with all that stuff, and I would be happy if he got elected. The parts of his platform that I disagree with are

- The gold standard, I want to keep a fiat currency
- Health care, I am a proponent of socialized medicine
- Total free trade - 99% free trade is fine, but you have to be able to retaliate when other countries do predatory things (like the current Chinese fixed exchange rate).

But if the rest of his platform got passed I would be OK with it - and I would love to have the foreign military bases closed and the war on drugs ended.

Yes to most of this. Against abolishing many of the Federal agencies he wants to kill. Against his views on education. Against his views on taxation. And many more. But it might be interesting (and might be disastrous) to see what happens if he's given a chance to really push his policies.

I realize there's a little fanciful speculation going on here...but let's be clear if Ron Paul were to actually get elected President, there's no way he'd get nearly any of his policy prescriptions enacted.

At best he might be a speed bump to some of the worst policy and legislative actions of the right and left wing branches of the establishment statist party.

Honestly, yes. Obama's 'Hope and Change' was mostly hope and was unfortunately very little change at all. No change ('conserving' the status quo outright) would have been even worse.

Quote:

The whole premise is: "if we don't do something, things are going to get a lot worse".

And that premise was absolutely correct. We (Obama and Congress) did almost nothing to fix what is wrong. And things got worse.

Quote:

Has it ever occurred to you that the solution might be LESS government meddling in things, not more?

Honestly, I've studied this. And history says 'no'. The only times in history that things got better was when there was more government regulation combined with Democracy and (yes) capitalism. Name one time in history when less government has led to progress. Go ahead.

Honestly, yes. Obama's 'Hope and Change' was mostly hope and was unfortunately very little change at all. No change ('conserving' the status quo outright) would have been even worse.

Reducing government interventionism would also be a change form the status quo, would it not?

Quote:

And that premise was absolutely correct. We (Obama and Congress) did almost nothing to fix what is wrong. And things got worse.

The government did all sorts of things. That's why things got worse. Are you suggesting that government meddling in things is good, but it just has to meddle in the "correct" things the "proper" way?

Quote:

Honestly, I've studied this. And history says 'no'. The only times in history that things got better was when there was more government regulation combined with Democracy and (yes) capitalism.

Which libertarians have you read and studied?

Quote:

Name one time in history when less government has led to progress. Go ahead.

Let's see...there was this one time when a group of guys declared independence from oppressive, authoritarian government and founded their own country, which led to the greatest era of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known.

Reducing government interventionism would also be a change form the status quo, would it not?

The government did all sorts of things. That's why things got worse. Are you suggesting that government meddling in things is good, but it just has to meddle in the "correct" things the "proper" way?

Which libertarians have you read and studied?

Let's see...there was this one time when a group of guys declared independence from oppressive, authoritarian government and founded their own country, which led to the greatest era of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known.

Can't think of the name of it off the top of my head...

ahhaha!!!! Are you honestly trying to say there was less government regulation in America after the Revolution than there was under the British monarchy?